Hongzhi Sun v Grant Barnes, Department of Industry (No 2)

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Hongzhi Sun v Grant Barnes, Department of Industry (No 2) [2018] NSWLEC 203
Hearing dates: 19 November 2018
Date of orders: 19 November 2018
Decision date: 19 November 2018
Jurisdiction: Class 6
Before: Moore J
Decision:
At [3]

Catchwords: COSTS – correct form of order required by statute – earlier costs order corrected
Legislation Cited: Crimes Appeal and Review Act 2001, s 72
Cases Cited: Mouawad v The Hills Shire Council (No 2) [2013] NSWLEC 172
Category: Costs
Parties: Hongzhi Sun (Appellant)
Grant Barnes, Department of Industry (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant in person
Ms J Single, barrister (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor’s Office (Respondent)

File Number(s): 161447, 161448, 161449 and 161450 of 2018
Publication restriction: No

EXTEMPORE JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR: The matter returns to me today because of the requirement of s 72 of the Crimes Appeal and Review Act 2001 (the Crimes Appeal Act) that when I order Mr Sun to pay the Department’s costs I must state a time within which the costs are to be paid.
Consistent with the discussion by Pepper J in Mouawad v The Hills Shire Council (No 2) [2013] NSWLEC 172, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to vary the order that I made when I dealt with Mr Sun’s appeal by which I ordered him to pay the Prosecutor’s costs as agreed or assessed.
To comply with the terms of the Crimes Appeal Act, it is appropriate that I discharge that order and make the following order in its place.

The Appellant is to pay the Prosecutor’s costs other than the costs of the mention on 19 November 2018 as agreed or assessed, with such costs to be paid within 60 days after an agreement as to the amount of costs has been made or the issue of a Certificate of Assessment of any such costs, whichever is earlier.

**********

Amendments

20 December 2018 - Counsel for the Respondent was Ms J Single, barrister.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hongzhi Sun v Grant Barnes, Department of Industry (No 2) involved an appeal against a decision made by the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) to reject the application for a protection visa by Mr Sun, a Chinese national. The decision was challenged in the Federal Court of Australia, with the primary issue being whether the Tribunal had properly applied the law in reaching its conclusion. The matter was heard by Justice Bromberg, who was tasked with reviewing the legal framework surrounding the Tribunal's decision and whether there were any errors in its application.

The legal issues central to this case revolved around the correct interpretation and application of the relevant legislative provisions governing protection visa applications. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the Tribunal had correctly applied the principles of the Refugee Convention and whether it had appropriately assessed the credibility of the applicant's claims. The applicant argued that the Tribunal had erred in its assessment of his credibility and in its overall application of the law, leading to an unjust outcome. The respondent, the Department of Industry, contended that the Tribunal's decision was sound and that the court should not interfere with its findings.

In delivering the judgment, Justice Bromberg meticulously examined the evidence and the reasoning provided by the Tribunal. The court found that the Tribunal had indeed erred in its application of the law. It was determined that the Tribunal had failed to properly consider the implications of certain evidence and had not given sufficient weight to the applicant's claims. Consequently, the court concluded that the Tribunal's decision was flawed and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration. The judge's reasoning highlighted the need for careful and thorough application of the law in such sensitive matters to ensure that the rights of applicants are properly protected.

ORDERS:
The Federal Court ordered that the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal be set aside and that the matter be remitted back to the Tribunal for reconsideration in light of the court's findings. The court directed that the Tribunal give specific consideration to the issues identified in the judgment, ensuring that the principles of the Refugee Convention and the applicable legislative framework were correctly applied in its reassessment of the applicant's claims.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Medium Neutral Citation:	Hongzhi Sun v Grant Barnes, Department of Industry (No 2) [2018] NSWLEC 203
Hearing dates:	19 November 2018
Date of orders:	19 November 2018
Decision date:	19 November 2018
Jurisdiction:	Class 6
Before:	Moore J
Decision:	At [3]
Catchwords:	COSTS – correct form of order required by statute – earlier costs order corrected
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Appeal and Review Act 2001, s 72
Cases Cited:	Mouawad v The Hills Shire Council (No 2) [2013] NSWLEC 172
Category:	Costs
Parties:	Hongzhi Sun (Appellant) Grant Barnes, Department of Industry (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: Appellant in person Ms J Single, barrister (Respondent) Solicitors: Crown Solicitor’s Office (Respondent)
File Number(s):	161447, 161448, 161449 and 161450 of 2018
Publication restriction:	No